Re: `exec shield' test in configure too strict?

[Camm Maguire <camm@enhanced.com>]

Greetings!

"Jan D." <jan.h.d@swipnet.se> writes:

> >> Another idea: can `main' contain code to move its heap address to the
> >> desired place, at startup?
> >
> >     No, as the desired place is not a mapped memory region, you can
> > not write
> >     there.
> >
> > How about mapping a memory region at the desired place, then
> > putting the heap address there?
> 
> It could work, but sounds tricky, you would have to mmap exactly
> between BSS and the heap.  It is possible that the kernel could
> reject such a request.  I haven't tested it though.
> 
> >       But we could do as described by Camm Maguire, check if the
> > heap is not
> >     at the correct place at temacs startup, and if it is not, call
> >     personality(LINUX32) and exec() temacs again.
> >
> > That also seems like a good method, perhaps better.  It would require
> > testing whether the symbols pertaining to personalites are developed,
> > but that is a test done by compilation, so it should be
> > unproblematical.
> 
> I have checked in this method now.  I actually have an unexelf.c that
> works
> with exec-shield on now, but I have only tested it on Fedora Core 2.  It
> is probably too risky to check it in this close to a release.
> 

I'd be interested to see your unexelf.c patch.

Take care,

> 	Jan D.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-devel mailing list
> Emacs-devel@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Camm Maguire			     			camm@enhanced.com
==========================================================================
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens."  --  Baha'u'llah